Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02

On 11/8/2010 1:17 PM, Ian Elz wrote:
> Hadriel,
>
> Roland missed one other case in his reply.
>
> If I divert a call I may want my identity to be private even if the original caller allows his identity to be presented; i.e. I don't want the final destination of the call to know the identity of the diverting party.

Won't your identity still be present in the To URI?

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Ian Elz
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hadriel Kaplan"<HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
> To: "Shida Schubert"<shida@ntt-at.com>
> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, 8 November, 2010 3:01:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:01 AM, Shida Schubert wrote:
>
>> Privacy:none is used when caller (UAC) wants his/her identity delivered
>> to the destination (callee) despite the existence of privacy service, but
>> with regards to H-I, when does it ever contain the URI that identifies the
>> caller (UAC) ?
>> I agree that privacy:none will be valid if we can find a situation where
>> URI of UA will be one of the hi-entry but my imagination is not strong
>> enough to see this.
>
> But that also begs the question of why we need a Privacy header of "history" to begin with. (I mean a real Privacy header in the message, not an embedded one in a particular HI URI)
>
> The only case I could imagine for such things is that the caller doesn't want their domain known about.  I.e., I make an anonymous call from my SIP phone through my corporate SIP proxy, and my SIP phone sets "Privacy: history" so that Acme Packet's anonymization proxy removes "acmepacket.com" from any H-Is, before sending it out our SIP trunk, etc.
>
> -hadriel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>